Editing Invasive species (section)

=== Economic ===
[[File:Pasig River Intramuros Escolta Water Hyacinths.jpg|thumb|Invasive [[water hyacinth]]s clog the [[Pasig River]] in [[Manila]], [[Philippines]] in October 2020.<ref>{{cite news |last1=Dela Cruz |first1=Raymond Carl |title=Water hyacinths ground Pasig River Ferry ops |url=https://www.pna.gov.ph/articles/1117832 |access-date=10 August 2024 |work=[[Philippine News Agency]] |date=October 7, 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20231028150214/https://www.pna.gov.ph/articles/1117832 |archive-date=October 28, 2023}}</ref>]]

Globally, invasive species management and control are substantial economic burdens, with expenditures reaching approximately $1.4 trillion annually.{{r|amstutz2018}} The economic impact of invasive alien species alone was estimated to exceed $423 billion annually as of 2019. This cost has exhibited a significant increase, quadrupling every decade since 1970, underscoring the escalating financial implications of these biological invasions.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Environment |first=U. N. |date=2023-09-04 |title=Invasive Alien Species Report |url=http://www.unep.org/resources/report/invasive-alien-species-report |access-date=2024-05-29 |website=www.unep.org |language=en}}</ref>

Invasive species contribute to [[Environmental degradation|ecological degradation]], altering ecosystem functionality and reducing the services ecosystems provide. This necessitates additional expenditures to control the spread of biological invasions, mitigate further impacts, and restore affected ecosystems. For example, the damage caused by 79 invasive species between 1906 and 1991 in the United States has been estimated at US$120 billion. Similarly, in [[China]], invasive species have been reported to reduce the country's gross domestic product (GDP) by 1.36% per year.<ref name=":22" /><ref>{{cite journal |last1=Xu |first1=Haigen |last2=Ding |first2=Hui |last3=Li |first3=Mingyan |last4=Qiang |first4=Sheng |last5=Guo |first5=Jianying |last6=Han |first6=Zhengmin |last7=Huang |first7=Zongguo |last8=Sun |first8=Hongying |last9=He |first9=Shunping |last10=Wu |first10=Hairong |last11=Wan |first11=Fanghao |date=2006 |title=The distribution and economic losses of alien species invasion to China |journal=Biological Invasions |volume=8 |issue=7 |pages=1495–1500 |bibcode=2006BiInv...8.1495X |doi=10.1007/s10530-005-5841-2 |s2cid=25890246}}</ref>

The management of biological invasions can be costly. In [[Australia]], for instance, the expense to monitor, control, manage, and research invasive weed species is approximately AU$116.4 million per year, with costs directed solely to central and local government.<ref name=":22" />

While in some cases, invasive species may offer economic benefits, such as the potential for commercial forestry from invasive trees, these benefits are generally overshadowed by the substantial costs associated with biological invasions. In most cases, the [[Returns (economics)|economic returns]] from invasive species are far less than the costs they impose.<ref name=":32">{{cite journal |last1=Molnar |first1=Jennifer L |last2=Gamboa |first2=Rebecca L |last3=Revenga |first3=Carmen |last4=Spalding |first4=Mark D |date=2008 |title=Assessing the global threat of invasive species to marine biodiversity |journal=Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment |volume=6 |issue=9 |pages=485–492 |bibcode=2008FrEE....6..485M |doi=10.1890/070064 }}</ref><ref name=":22" />

==== United States ====
In the [[Great Lakes region]] the [[sea lamprey]] is an invasive species. In its original habitat, it had co-evolved as a [[Parasitism |parasite]] that did not kill its host. However, in the Great Lakes Region, it acts as a predator and can consume up to 40 pounds of fish in its 12–18 month feeding period.<ref name=":0">{{cite web |url=http://www.glfc.org/sea-lamprey.php |title=Great Lakes Fishery Commission – Sea Lamprey |website=www.glfc.org |access-date=October 24, 2017 |archive-date=October 25, 2017 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20171025023343/http://www.glfc.org/sea-lamprey.php |url-status=live}}</ref> Sea lampreys prey on all types of large fish such as [[lake trout]] and [[salmon]]. The sea lampreys' destructive effects on large fish negatively affect the fishing industry and have helped cause the collapse of the population of some species.<ref name=":0"/>

[[Economic cost]]s from invasive species can be separated into direct costs through production loss in agriculture and forestry, and management costs. Estimated damage and control costs of invasive species in the U.S. amount to more than $138&nbsp;billion annually.<ref name="pimental">{{cite journal |last1=Pimentel |first1=D. |last2=R. |first2=Zuniga |last3=Morrison |first3=D |year=2005 |title=Update on the environmental and economic costs associated with alien-invasive species in the United States |journal=[[Ecological Economics]] |volume=52 |issue=3 |pages=273–288 |doi=10.1016/j.ecolecon.2004.10.002 |bibcode=2005EcoEc..52..273P }}</ref> Economic losses can occur through loss of [[recreation]]al and [[tourism]] revenues.<ref name="simb">{{cite journal |last=Simberloff |first=D. |year=2001 |jstor=41717176 |title=Biological invasions – How are they affecting us, and what can we do about them? |journal=[[Western North American Naturalist]] |volume=61 |issue=3 |pages=308–315}}</ref> When economic costs of invasions are calculated as production loss and management costs, they are low because they do not consider environmental damage; if monetary values were assigned to the [[extinction]] of species, loss in biodiversity, and loss of [[ecosystem services]], costs from impacts of invasive species would drastically increase.<ref name="pimental"/> It is often argued that the key to invasive species management is early detection and rapid response.<ref>{{Cite book |url=https://www.doi.gov/sites/doi.gov/files/migrated/invasivespecies/upload/2008-2012-National-Invasive-Species-Management-Plan.pdf |title=2008–2012 National Invasive Species Management Plan. |publisher=National Invasive Species Council, Department of the Interior |year=2008 |location=Washington, DC. |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150929011911/https://www.doi.gov/sites/doi.gov/files/migrated/invasivespecies/upload/2008-2012-National-Invasive-Species-Management-Plan.pdf |archive-date=29 September 2015 |url-status=live}}</ref> However, early response only helps when the invasive species is not frequently reintroduced into the managed area, and the cost of response is affordable.<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Holden |first1=Matthew H. |last2=Nyrop |first2=Jan P. |last3=Ellner |first3=Stephen P. |date=June 1, 2016 |title=The economic benefit of time-varying surveillance effort for invasive species management |journal=[[Journal of Applied Ecology]] |volume=53 |issue=3 |pages=712–721 |doi=10.1111/1365-2664.12617 |doi-access=free|bibcode=2016JApEc..53..712H }}</ref>

[[File:Parthenium smothering native flora in Biodiversity Rich Forest.jpg |thumb |''[[Parthenium hysterophorus]]'', [[Achanakmar Tiger Reserve]]]]

[[Weed]]s reduce yield in [[agriculture]]. Many weeds are accidental introductions that accompany imports of commercial seeds and plants. Introduced weeds in pastures compete with native forage plants, threaten young [[cattle]] (e.g., leafy spurge, ''[[Euphorbia virgata]]'') or are unpalatable because of [[Thorns, spines, and prickles |thorns and spines]] (e.g., [[yellow starthistle]]). Forage loss from invasive weeds on pastures amounts to nearly [[US$]]1&nbsp;billion in the U.S.<ref name="pimental"/> A decline in pollinator services and loss of fruit production has been caused by [[Western honeybee |honey bees]] infected by the invasive [[varroa mite]]. Introduced rats (''[[Rattus rattus]]'' and ''[[Rattus norvegicus |R. norvegicus]]'') have become serious pests<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Gougherty |first1=Andrew V. |last2=Davies |first2=T. Jonathan |title=Towards a phylogenetic ecology of plant pests and pathogens |journal=Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences |date=8 November 2021 |volume=376 |issue=1837 |pages=20200359 |doi=10.1098/rstb.2020.0359 |pmid=34538142 |pmc=8450633 }}</ref> on farms, destroying stored grains.<ref name="pimental"/> The introduction of leaf miner flies ([[Agromyzidae]]), including the American serpentine leaf miner (''[[Liriomyza trifolii]]''), to California has caused losses in California's [[floriculture]] industry, as the larvae of these invasive species feed on ornamental plants.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://entnemdept.ufl.edu/creatures/veg/leaf/a_serpentine_leafminer.htm |title=American serpentine leafminer – Liriomyza trifolii (Burgess) |website=entnemdept.ufl.edu |access-date=November 20, 2019 |archive-date=November 25, 2019 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20191125043634/http://entnemdept.ufl.edu/Creatures/veg/leaf/a_serpentine_leafminer.htm |url-status=live}}</ref>

Invasive plant pathogens and insect vectors for plant diseases can suppress agricultural yields and harm nursery stock. [[Citrus]] greening is a [[bacterial disease]] vectored by the invasive [[Asian citrus psyllid]]. As a result, citrus is under quarantine and highly regulated in areas where the psyllid has been found.<ref name="r2">{{Cite web |title=Citrus Greening |url=http://www.clemson.edu/public/regulatory/plant_industry/invasive_exotic_programs/Pest%20Alerts/citrus_greening.html |archive-url=https://archive.today/20130616000111/http://www.clemson.edu/public/regulatory/plant_industry/invasive_exotic_programs/Pest%20Alerts/citrus_greening.html |archive-date=16 June 2013 |website=Clemson Public Service Activities - The Department of Plant Industry}}</ref>

Invasive species can impact outdoor recreation, such as fishing, [[hunting]], [[hiking]], [[wildlife viewing]], and water-based activities. They can damage environmental services including [[water quality]], plant and animal diversity, and [[species abundance]], though the extent of this is under-researched.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Eiswerth |first1=M.E. |year=2005 |title=Input-output modeling, outdoor recreation, and the economic impacts of weeds |journal=[[Weed Science]] |volume=53 |pages=130–137 |doi=10.1614/WS-04-022R |last2=Darden |first2=Tim D. |last3=Johnson |first3=Wayne S. |last4=Agapoff |first4=Jeanmarie |last5=Harris |first5=Thomas R. |s2cid=85608607 }}</ref> Eurasian watermilfoil (''[[Myriophyllum spicatum]]'') in parts of the US, fills lakes with plants, complicating fishing and boating.<ref>{{Cite web |date=1 November 2006 |title=Eurasian Watermilfoil in the Great Lakes Region |url=http://great-lakes.net/envt/flora-fauna/invasive/milfoil.html |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080725034837/http://great-lakes.net/envt/flora-fauna/invasive/milfoil.html#overview |archive-date=25 July 2008 |website=Great Lakes Information Network}}</ref> The loud call of the introduced [[common coqui]] depresses real estate values in affected neighborhoods of [[Hawaii]].<ref>{{cite book |url=http://www.aphis.usda.gov/wildlife_damage/nwrc/symposia/invasive_symposium/content/Sin157_167_MVIS.pdf |last1=Sin |first1=Hans |last2=Radford |first2=Adam |year=2007 |chapter =Coqui frog research and management efforts in Hawaii |title=Managing Vertebrate Invasive Species: Proceedings of an International Symposium (G. W. Witmer, W. C. Pitt, K. A. Fagerstone, Eds) |publisher=USDA/APHIS/WS, National Wildlife Research Center |location=Fort Collins, Colorado |access-date=June 26, 2013 |archive-date=May 25, 2017 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170525103353/http://www.aphis.usda.gov/wildlife_damage/nwrc/symposia/invasive_symposium/content/Sin157_167_MVIS.pdf}}</ref> The large webs of the orb-weaving spider ''[[Zygiella x-notata]]'', invasive in California, disrupts garden work.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Spider Invaders |url=https://www.kqed.org/quest/9595/spider-invaders |access-date=2020-12-13 |website=KQED |date=October 18, 2010 |archive-date=November 5, 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201105170805/https://www.kqed.org/quest/9595/spider-invaders |url-status=live}}</ref>

==== Europe ====
The overall economic cost of invasive alien species in Europe between 1960 and 2020 has been estimated at around US$140 billion (including potential costs that may or may not have actually materialised) or US$78 billion (only including observed costs known to have materialised). These estimates are very conservative. Models based on these data suggest a true ''annual'' cost of around US$140 billion in 2020.<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Haubrock |first1=Phillip J. |last2=Turbelin |first2=Anna J. |last3=Cuthbert |first3=Ross N. |last4=Novoa |first4=Ana |last5=Taylor |first5=Nigel G. |last6=Angulo |first6=Elena |last7=Ballesteros-Mejia |first7=Liliana |last8=Bodey |first8=Thomas W. |last9=Capinha |first9=César |last10=Diagne |first10=Christophe |last11=Essl |first11=Franz |last12=Golivets |first12=Marina |last13=Kirichenko |first13=Natalia |last14=Kourantidou |first14=Melina |last15=Leroy |first15=Boris |last16=Renault |first16=David |last17=Verbrugge |first17=Laura |last18=Courchamp |first18=Franck |display-authors=6  |title=Economic costs of invasive alien species across Europe |year=2021 |journal=[[Neobiota]] |volume=67 |pages=153–190 |hdl=10138/333320 |s2cid=237460752 |hdl-access=free |doi=10.3897/neobiota.67.58196 |doi-access=free }}</ref>

{{visible anchor |Italy |'''[[Italy]]'''}} is one of the most invaded countries in [[Europe]], with an estimate of more than 3,000 alien species. The impacts of invasive alien species on the economy has been wide-ranging, from management costs, to loss of crops, to infrastructure damage. The overall economic cost of invasions to Italy between 1990 and 2020 was estimated at US$819.76 million (EUR€704.78 million). However, only 15 recorded species have more reliably estimated costs, hence the actual cost may be much larger than the aforementioned sum.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Haubrock |first1=Phillip J. |last2=Cuthbert |first2=Ross N. |last3=Tricarico |first3=Elena |last4=Diagne |first4=Christophe |last5=Courchamp |first5=Franck |last6=Gozlan |first6=Rodolphe E. |title=The recorded economic costs of alien invasive species in Italy |journal=NeoBiota |date=29 July 2021 |volume=67 |pages=247–266 |doi=10.3897/neobiota.67.57747 |s2cid=238819772 |url=https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-03410329/file/CostsinItaly.pdf |doi-access=free |hdl=2158/1262519 }}</ref>

{{visible anchor |France |'''[[France]]'''}} has an estimated minimum of 2,750 introduced and invasive alien species. Renault et al. (2021) obtained 1,583 cost records for 98 invasive alien species and found that they caused a conservative total cost between US$1.2 billion and 11.5 billion over the period 1993–2018. This study extrapolated costs for species invading France, but for which costs were reported only in other countries but not in France, which yielded an additional cost ranging from US$151 million to $3.03 billion. Damage costs were nearly eight times higher than management expenditure. Insects, and in particular the Asian tiger mosquito ''[[Aedes albopictus]]'' and the yellow fever mosquito ''[[Aedes aegypti |Ae. aegypti]]'', totalled very high economic costs, followed by non-graminoid terrestrial flowering and aquatic plants (''[[Ambrosia artemisiifolia]]'', ''[[Ludwigia (plant) |Ludwigia]]'' sp. and ''[[Lagarosiphon major]]''). Over 90% of alien species currently recorded in France had no costs reported in the literature, resulting in high biases in taxonomic, regional and activity sector coverages. However, no reports does not mean that there are no negative consequences and thus no costs.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Renault |first1=David |last2=Manfrini |first2=Eléna |last3=Leroy |first3=Boris |last4=Diagne |first4=Christophe |last5=Ballesteros-Mejia |first5=Liliana |last6=Angulo |first6=Elena |last7=Courchamp |first7=Franck |title=Biological invasions in France: Alarming costs and even more alarming knowledge gaps |journal=NeoBiota |date=29 July 2021 |volume=67 |pages=191–224 |doi=10.3897/neobiota.67.59134 |s2cid=237462170 |doi-access=free }}</ref>